Specifically, I pointed out that banning the various incarnations of the Nazi Party in Germany has been unsuccessful since the Nazis involved simply reorganised under another name. AkkadianTimes argues that arguing against a ban on Nazi party reincarnations on these grounds is akin to arguing against laws banning murder since people are just going to murder anyway. I understand what AkkadianTimes is saying. However, I disagree.

I do NOTdisagree out of ANYsympathy for the alt-right race realists, as the 2017 incarnations of the Nazis call themselves. Like Vee, I was around during #GamerGate. Unlike Vee, I remember the alt right race realists trying to divert Jordan Owen's superb documentary filim The Sarkeesian Effect, these machinations of the alt right race realists being entirely sufficient for me to deem them as untrustworthy, deceptive, manipulative and supreme epitomes of the word "nefarious." That is why, unlike Vee and Sargon, I do not pooh-pooh the alt right race realists.

Nor do I disagree out of concerns for free speech per se. My definition of free speech is most likely more narrow than that of the Bumblebees and Mr. Owen. To be precise, my definition of free speech is largely drawn from the Williamite Resettlement Act of 1689, ratified in blood at the Boyne the following year. I define freedom of speech as the ability to write a letter to the editor of one's newspaper criticising the government of the day, or the cyber-equivalent thereof, without fear of retribution from said government of the day. I further define freedom of speech as my ability to read Gore Vidal's Myra Breckinridge and Grace Metallious' Peyton Place, and to view Lorelei Leeand Nina Hartley whiping and sodomising naked women, and to view Belladonna shoving a baseball bat up Melissa Lauren's ass (giving Mel a powerfully rockin' orgasm by the looks in her cute blue eyes) without some latter-day Fredric Wertham and Mary Whitehouse, i.e. Gail Dines and Anita Sarkeesian, interfering with my ability to do so.

That being said, I am not at all a proponent of unrestricted freedom of speech. I openly, loudly and fully support the sterile cockpit rule, which specifically bans pilot, copilot, navigator, engineer and radio operator from making political speeches--or, for that matter, anyspeech not strictly related to the safe handling of the aircraft--while airborne and below ten thousand feet. Indeed, one could argue that any employer who has something to the effect of "professionalism," "quality," and/or "the customer is always Job #1" in the organisation's mission statement could translate the sterile cockpit rule into a bona fide occupational requirement at any point of customer service. I also fully support Québec Bill 78 and Montréal Bylaw P-6, which imposed limitations on freedom of speech with the aim of bringing the sjambok down on Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois's mob of social justice jihadist rioters.

As well, depending on the jurisdiction, a law that bans a reincarnated Nazi party could face things like injunctions and freedom of speech challenges that would relegate that law to the same limbo as Trump/Bannon's Muslim bans whilst proceedings--which could take months--are ongoing. In the process, the reincarnated Nazis could exploit these proceedings as free publicity, and it is quite possible that a Nazi Party ban in America, at least, would draw opposition even from outside the alt-right race realist manosphere. In 1978, none other than the American Civil Liberties Union defended an openly Nazi organisation's right to march in a Jewish neighbourhood in Illinois, and won. The sterile cockpit rule has not faced a successful supreme court challenge because it can be clearly demonstrated to be a bona fide occupational requirement. Linking the speech of a Steve Bannon or a Richard Spencer to a specific assault or murder could very well be much harder to do. For one thing, Bannon, Spencer and Millennial Woes use the exact same modus operandi as #BlackLivesMatter and ISIS. None is the President/Führer of a formal organisation hundreds of thousands strong with an organigramme that lends itself to be easily filled by the security forces surveiling them. Rather, they make pronunciamentos vague enough that there is a certain degree of insulation, of plausible deniability, between them and individuals who act on said pronunciamentos.

This is why I argue that a far more effective way of dealing with the alt-right race realist manosphere is to go after their actions rather than embarking on the route of banning them, a route whose viability of outcome is uncertain at best. Again, Québec provides an example.

Rambo Gauthier recently set up his own alt right race realist party, differing from Steve Bannon, Richard Spencer and Millennial Woes only in that a) Gauthier does not speak a word of English, and in that b) Gauthier and his mob hate English-speaking people as much as they hate Muslims and non-whites. The Québec Government and Provincial Police did not ban Rambo Gauthier's party. Rather, they kept an eye on his mob and then pounced on them when they did something they could be nicked for. As a result, Rambo Gauthier is not a martyr for the alt right, but rather someone who knowingly allows people to use his platform to violate Canadian laws banning hate speech, which diminishes his legitimacy, most particularly now that Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois has exchanged rioting for politiciking and is currently running as a candidate for the far-left Québec Solidaire, with particular appeal to young people and, like the ruling Liberal Party, on an explicitly anti-racist platform that stands in complete contrast to that of the Parti Québecois, the Coalition Avenir Québec and Bernard "Rambo" Gauthier.